Skip to main content

Full text of "Reply to Archdeacon Farrar's excursus in eternal hope [microform]"

See other formats




,,/■■?• . •■■ 


Page 30. line 2, for " preisumptive," read " presumptuous." 

31 "24 " "Judacio," • " " Judaioo." 

32 " 3 '• "Aut," ■ " "Ant." 
" considering " 
" young ruler" 

47 " 22, after " blasphemous " supply " thought." 
51 tmnsjx)se first and second paragraphs. 

" 40 " 22 " 
" 45 " 21 " 

" " consideration." 
" " lawyer." 








.;,3 '■„ .,v •• 



..■: • v^r-- 


'A '- ■; 

W. HENDERSON, M. A., T.C.D., * 


»' liir , ^ii- 



Entered according to Act of Parliament of Canada, in the year 1884, in 
the Office of the Minister of Agriculture, by Dawson Brothers, 



^^ PREFACE. : . 

''-'-'-' . ■■ ■ , " --*.;■' "■ ■ ".'. '''■-■ 

• -•:■.'.-*. 

The following is a reply to the request made 
by the Students of the Montreal Diocesan 
Theological College that I should criticize Arch- 
deacon Farrar's interpretation of the texts quoted 
in the Excursus to his book entitled " Eternal 
Hope." I pray that it may be instrumental in 
counteracting, in some measure, the evil effects 
of that misleading book, and in establishing, 
strengthening and settling those who read it, in 
the conviction, that he who believeth not " shall 
not see life ; but the wrath of Grod abideth on 
, him." r - y -■_ ■ ^ ---. , \-, ;.",;: 

Montreal, Feb. 27, 1884. . » 

■■' ■4., 









In accordance with your request, I 
proceed to state my views on the subject of 
Eternal Punishment. " 

You must bear with me, however, if I detain 
you beyond the time of an ordinary lecture in 
the consideration of this question. This is a 
subject of more than ordinary importance ; and 
more than ordinary care and time are required 
to expose the fallacies by which anti-orthodox 
views are invariably supported. Some may, 
indeed, question its importance, but with me 
there is no room for doubt on the subject ; for, 
surely, it must be of the very highest moment, 
in relation to practice, to know whether we 

can remove, without injury to the building, the 
foundation on which the superstructure rests. . 
How then shall this question be determined ? 
I propose — . 

1. To point out what the Church of England 
teaches on the subject. 

2. To state the various opinions respecting it. 

3. To explain the conditions of the problem. 

4. To adduce evidence of the orthodox doc- 

5. To reply to objections. • -^ 

6. To criticize Archdeacon Farrar's Excursus 
on "Eternal Hope." 

I. What does the Church of England teach? 
Is there any ground for the statement that " by 
no single formulary of the Church of England 
is such a dogma required " ? 

To which we reply, that, in the Athanasian 
Creed, it is said of the person who does not 
keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled, 
"without doubt he shall perish everlastingly," 
and, "they that have done evil shall go into 
everlasting fire," — " which except a man believes 
faithfully he cannot be saved." 

In the Litany we are taught to pray, saying, 
" from thy wrath and from everlasting damna- 
tion good Lord deliver us." 

In the Catechism we are taught to say " that 
He will keep us from our ghostly enemy and 
from everlasting death." ; ^' 

In the Burial Service we are taught to pray, 
saying, " deliver us not into the bitter pains of 
eternal death." , 

• In the Commination Service we read of the 
** dreadful judgment hanging over our heads," 
of the " sudden destruction " which we shall not 
escape, of " burning the chaff with unquencha- 
ble fire," of the time " when men shall call upon 
the Lord and he shall not hear," " they shall seek 
him early but shall not find him," of the " outer 
darkness," and of the "extreme malediction 
which shall light upon them that shall be set 
on the left hand." 

In the Ordering of Priests, allusion is made 
to the " horrible punishment " which will ens: ^ 
on neglect of official duties. 

Yet with this evidence before him, and with 
the knowledge that every clergyman must sub- 
scribe to the Prayer book before his ordination. 
Archdeacon Farrar does not hesitate to say that 
'* no formulary of the Church of England requires 
it." ' 

True, it is no longer included among the more 
formal articles of the Faith, but when the forty- 
second article on this subject was omitted, the 
words quoted above were deliberately retained. 
Hence we argue that the formal statement of the 
doctrine was regarded as needless, and the fact is, 
its frequent and informal presentation in the 
various offices "is a stronger proof that it is 


required" than if it were presented in a more 
formal manner. It is evidently taken for grant- 
ed, and the reasonable presumption is, that every 
one will receive it without question. ' 

It should be remembered also that it is em- 
bodied everywhere in the Homilies, and as we 
subscribe the Homilies when we subscribe the 
Book of Common Prayer, it will be difficult to 
understand how any one can honestly enter the 
ministry of the Church of England, or remain in 
it, who does not accept the doctrine in the plain 
grammatical sense of the terms in which it is 
expressed in the Liturgy. - ; - 

II. I propose to define the opinions on the 

One is TJniversalism which teaches that all 
men and evil angels after enduring an indefinite 
but temporary punishment shall eventually be 
saved. /^ 

Another is " Alleviationism " which teaches 
that the impenitent shall neither cease to be, 
nor be saved, but shall become better in charac- 
ter and consequently in condition. • ., 

Another is that eternal, punishment means 
merely separation from the eternal, without 
involving any more positive penal infliction. 
Another is " Conditional Immortality " which 
teaches that Glod " only hath immortality," and 
that man was created potentially, but not neces- 
sarily, immortal. The devil, a manslayer from 

the beginning, led man into sin for the express 
purpose of destroying his immortality, and 
this was actually effected by the fall; that 
immortality is restored only on condition of 
faith in Christ, and that all therefore who 
have not this faith in Christ shall cease to 
exist. ^ _ 

Another is Farrarism, or Eternal Hope, which 
is so indefinite that it can only be regarded as 
the belief of one who would like to be a Univer- 
salist if he could. ' ^ - 

Another, the Orthodox Doctrine which teaches 
that the finally impenitent shall exist hereafter 
in a state of greater or less misery, in proportion 
to the evil deeds done in the body without Grod 
and without hope and therefore for ever. 

III. I proceed next to state the conditions of 
the problem : — 

1. We have to deal with a Sovereign Creator. 
He doeth according to his will both in the 
armies of Heaven and among the inhabitants of 
the earth. None can question his right to dic- 
tate the terms on which he shall confer the gift 
of life, or grant its continuance for any specified 
time. . ^ . \ ■ 

2. We have to deal with an immutable Grod. 
"I am the Lord, I change not," are his own 
sublime words. He may change his mode of 
procedure in any given case, but in himself he 
cannot change. Even in man a change of out- 


ward action does not always argue a change 
of purpose. In Grod it never does. Otherwise 
he would not be God. 

3. We have to deal with ^an immortal soul. 
The soul does not need food as the body does to 
repair the continued waste. Hence it is not likely 
that it is subject to waste of any kind. The 
soul is immaterial and indivisible, and therefore 
^ it is probable that it is immortal. It partakes of 
the divine nature, and therefore it is more than 
probable that it is immortal ; and if we regard 
the subject from an historical point of view, it 
seems to have been almost universally admitted 
in all ages. 

Moreover, " if we grant that the soul can sur- 
vive such a shock as its separation from the 
body it seems irrational to entertain doubts as to 
its subsequent continuance. The most skeptical 
philosopher might exclaim : Only prove to me 
that the soul continues after death and I will 
make no difficulty in granting to you that it is 
immortal. Prove to me that there is a future life 
at all, and I will grant to you that it is eternal." 

"The ' Critique of Practical Eeason' demon- 
strates what Butler had only recommended as 
consistent with our previous knowledge — or at 
least not inconsistent with it — viz : that there 
is a righteous God ; that he reveals himself in 
conscience, and that the spirit to which he 
reveals himself is immortal." 


4. "We have to deal with an unchangeable 
Law. It is of the nature of law to be unchange- 
able. Moreover, this law is a transcript of the 
Divine nature. Any law fou ided on temporary- 
relations may be abrogated when it ha3 se:ved 
its purpose; but law founded on the eternal 
necessities of the divine nature must be as; 
etefnal and unchangeable as <xod himself. 

5. We have to deal with man in his covenant 
relationship to the law. Man was placed at his 
creation under the first covenant of works, 
G-en. ii. 16, 1*7, in relation to which another 
covenant is spoken of, viz : the new covenant, 
Heb. xii. 24. The first covenant was made with 
Adam, in a federal capacity, as the representative 
of our race, who, on this account, is called the 
" First Adam." I Cor. xv. 45. He entered into it 
willingly, and with a full sense of the righteous- 
ness of the arrangement. This appears as well 
from the title, covenant, which implies an agree- 
ment between the parties, as also from the two- 
fold consideration that we cannot think of Adam 
while perfect as objecting to the will of his 
Maker, and that after his fall he made no reflec- 
tion on the injustice of the arrangement. In the 
person of Adam each one of us broke this original 
covenant, and became liable in cons^ quence to 
all the penalties which were visited on him, 
viz., alienation from Grod — depravation of nature 
— forfeiture of the Spirit — and all else that is 

12 ^ 

involved in the comprehensive sentence, "Thou 
shalt surely die." The demonstrative evidence 
of this is the universality of death in its physi- 
cal aspect. " In Adam all die." I Cor. xv. 22 ; 
yea, even those "who have not sinned after 
the similitude of Adam's transgression." Rom. 
V. 14. The death of infants is inexplicable on 
any other supposition. The first covenant there- 
fore is still in force in reference to all, -8j^ it is 
written, " Tliis do and thou shalt live^ Luke x. 28. 

By its terms the rewards of eternal life and 
happiness are still conditioned upon the presen- 
tation of unblemished obedience to all the 
precepts of the divine law. And in case of dis- 
obedience, not only is the same demand for 
unblemished obedience continued, but in addi- 
tion, the threatened penalty (Gren. iii. 17, 19,) is 
incurred and must be endured, until the required 
condition l)e fulfilled, ^. e., so far as man himself 
is concerned, for ever. For, as before transgres- 
sion, the continuance of life depended on the 
continuance of perfect obedience ; so after trans- 
gression the restoration of life depends upon the 
same, together with the endurance of a satisfac- 
tory death. 

6. We have to deal with a class who are 
devoid of merit. Merit is the technical term for 
perfect unbroken obedience ; and where merit is 
wanting two things are needful in order to make 
full amendment for it ; first, death by the shed- 


ding of blood, to take away the guilt of disobe- 
dience ; and second, the performL.nce of the 
obedien^^e as originally required. The removal of 
the guilt would not be sufficient to atone for the 
sin. The supply of actual obedience in place of 
demerit is, if possible, even more necessary, before 
the demands of the law can be satisfied. For, 
let a given right line represent the obedience 

thus , a sin may be represented by a break 

in the line, thus ; But is it not evi- 
dent, that in order to mend the break it is not 
enough simply to suffer for the act of breaking ? 
The line itself must be made perfect, otherwise 
the task is not complete. But in the case of 
those who have broken the line of obedience 
once, it is impossible to do this. They cannot 
retrace the past and present a perfect obedience 
for an imperfect ; consequently, their condemna- 
tion must last as long as this inability lasts — 
and is not that forever ? Can sinners ever hope 
to overcome an obstacle like this ? If so, I know 
not how it can be done. A failure to observe this 
is one main cause of the prevalent indisposition 
to receive the orthodox doctrine. In fact, the 
non-recognition of man's legal relations in his 
natural state, as set forth in the epistle to the 
Eomans, is the root of much of the religious error 
of the present day. 

t. "We have to deal with those who are de- 
rpived of the Spirit. This is involved in the 

, 'T' 


representation given in Scripture of our natural 
fitate, that we are "dead." For as death physical 
means the separation of the soul from the body, 
so spiritual death means the separation of the 
soul from Grod. We are not by nature intellec- 
tually or morally dead, but we are by nature 
jspirituajly dead. As born into the world we 
have no spiritual faculty, and are therefore 
unable to discern the things of the Spirit (I Cor. 
ii. 14,) any more than one can see who is born 
without the faculty needful for that purpose. 
This separation of the soul from G-od took place 
when Adam sinned, and in fulfilment of the 
judicial sentence : " Thou shalt surely die." In 
other words, the Spirit was judicially with- 
drawn, as the penal consequence of Adam's sin, 
and we are inheritors of his inability in this 
respect. : ■ / 

8. "We have to deal with a helpless race. (1) 
Naturally helpless, on account of the withdrawal 
of the Spirit, involving as a necessary conse- 
quence spiritual death, and (2.) For the same 
reason eternally helpless ; (unless, indeed, the 
Holy Spirit can be restored,) for, not only has the 
spirit been withdrawn, but we are unable to 
retrace our steps and substitute merit for demerit 
— obedience for sin. _^- 

9. We have to deal with a Spirit who cannot 
operate except in conjunction with the Saviour. 
One person of the sacred Trinity cannot act inde- 


pendently of the other two. The grieved Spirit 
cannot return unless the terms of the original 
covenant are fulfilled. Consequently the work 
of the spirit is inseparably connected with the 
work of Christ. If ever, therefore, the mediatorial 
work of the Saviour shall cease, the work of 
the Spirit also must cease, and man must be left 
in his natural helplessness to fulfil the terms of 
the covenant in his own strength. 

10. "We enjoy the presence of the Spirit now for 
a time, because Christ has fulfilled the covenant 
for us, and we are therefore undergoing now for 
a time a second probation. The first was passed 
representatively in Adam. The second is passed 
personally during our present life time. Tested 
at first to see whether he would fall, man is now 
tested a second time, to ascertain whether he will 
rise again and re-occupy the position which in 
Adam he lost. Being involved in eternal con- 
demnation by the fault of another, he has now 
the opportunity of being " drawn out," but if he 
refuses the intervention of that Providence which 
would make him an adopted son andjheir of the 
kingdom, he has nothing to look for but a cer- 
tain fiery indignation which shall devour the 

11. There is, however, a limit to the mediatorial 
reign of Christ, and therefore a limit to the gra- 
gious operations of the Divine Spirit. On this 
point the Old Testament Scriptures have given 



many indirect intimations^ and the New many 
clear and infallible proofs. The wise man said 
"He that being often reproved hardeneth his 
heart shall suddenly be destroyed, and that with- 
out remedy. Prov. xxix, 1. It is written: "Then 
shall they call upon me, but I will not answer ; 
they shall seek me early, but they shall not find 
me." And we are all familiar with the words : 
" The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and 
we are not saved." , 

More clearly still, in the New Testament 
we read of the dresser of the vineyard using 
these significant words : '" After that thou shalt 
cut it down." We find the Lord Jesus described 
4is the "last Adam," and the present dispensa- 
tion spoken of an the "last time." — Nay more, to 
remove all room for doubt, it is expressly stated, 
2 Cor. XV. 24 : " Then cometh the end, when he 
shall have delivered up the kingdom to the 
Father, when he shall have put down all rule and 
all authority and power "; and " There remain- 
ethno more sacrifice for sin." The Spirit which 
was purchased by the sacrifice of the Saviour 
shall be finally withdrawn. The restraints now 
imposed upon the propensities of the wicked 
shall be entirely and forever taken away, and as 
a natural consequence the last state of these men 
shall be worse than the first. Unimpeded then 
by any supernatural check they will decline from 
one degree of moral turpitude to another, as 


inevitably as a stone held for a time at the top 
of en inclined plane, must roll downwards, when 
that whicli held it is removed, and not cease till 
it reaches the spot where, in accordance with the 
unalterable laws of the universe, it must remain 
until it shall either ascend of itself or be taken 
up by sonie superior power. , 

Hence it follows that reconciliation with God 
can only be effected while the reign of the 
Saviour lasts. It will be too late to look for it 
after the " door is shut." — ^Matt. xxv. 10. It can- 
not take place after the Son shall have " delivered 
uj) the kingdom." Nor after death and hell shall 
be " cast into the lake of fire." » - 

12. We have to deal with those who will be 
continually sinning; Many seem to think that 
when the Hubicon ol death is passed, the fountain 
of sin will be dried up, and the punishment to 
be endured will have reference only to the sins 
of this life, but a little reflection will show how 
erroneous this opinion is : "A corrupt tree can- 
not bring forth good fruit," and though it be 
true that for the demerit of evil deeds committed 
here — nay more, of a single evil deed, an eternity 
of punishment is no more than the due reward 
according to the terms of the covenant. Yet it 
is no less true, that the punishment to be awarded 
hereafter is not to be regarded as referring exclu- 
sively to the sins committed here. It refers 
eqtkally to sins committed in that future state. 


Each successive sin has its own weight of penalty- 
attached, and it needs no great ability to under- 
stand that endless sin demands an endless 
punishment. ^. ^ • 

13. Another element should not be forgotten — 
Will the lost even desire to be reconciled 
unto God ? How could they when they 
entertain an undying hatred to God and every- 
thing good ? Not only will they not wish 
for such an inestimable blessing, but they will 
probably wish that they may not be reconciled. 
They may undoubtedly seek relief, for they will - 
be "tormented in this flame," but they will 
not seek it in the company of the holy, just and 
good. They may wish to have the " tongue 
cooled," but not that they may chant the praises 
of the Lord. Their only desire will be that they 
may be permitted to return to the earth from 
whence they came. If the permission were 
granted it is presumed that they would remain 
unchanged and pursue again the indulgence of 
those sins which brought them to the place of 
torment, and separated between themselves and 
their God. 

14. It is scarcely needful to add that there will 
be only the two states after the judgment. There 
is no intermediate condition between that of 
those who endure the wrath to come, and that of 
those who enter into the joy of the Lord. Then 
as now, if the word of God be true, whosoever 

. «•". 


shall not be with Christ shall be against him, 
and it will need then more than the power of 
divine Omnipotence to change the enmity of the 
hard and stony heart into the friendship and love 
of one that is filled with the influences of the 
Spirit of God. ' ; - r 

Such are the conditions of the problem before 
us, and when we review them, we conclude that 
if the Grod of the universe be unchangeable ; if 
his covenant of works be still in force ; if the 
mediatorial reign of Christ be limited in dura- 
tion, and the work of the Spirit inseparably 
connected with it ; if man be left to himself to 
satisfy the demands of the violated law and to 
stand perfect and complete before a holy God — 
it cannot be done. It is impossible for a man to 
renew his life from the beginning and fill up 
the deficiencies of the past, and present a right- 
eousness which will stand the searching scrutiny 
of him " who keepeth mercy for thousands " but 
will by no means "clear the guilty." 

IV. I proceed now to the proofs of the orthodox 
doctrine from Reason and Scripture : 

In the first place then, Reason suggests that 
the same causes which operate to make the 
punishment of sin inevitable here, may operate 
in the same way throughout Eternity. Unless 
there be some positive reason for anticipating of 
a change in the laws which regulate human 
action, the presumption unquestionably is that 

'..■■■. ■v--i =.»:., 


in respect of sin, all things will continue as 
they have done since the day in which Adam 
by transgression fell. Some think that a change 
will be introduced in the way of annihil- 
ation, and that after a temporary punishment all 
sinners shall cease to exist. But the moral diffi- 
culties of the temporary punishment of the 
wicked hereafter are much greater than those 
connected with their eternal punishment. *' It 
would seem like vindictiveness if God were to 
raise men from the dead in order that, having 
tormented them for a number of years, he might 
consign them to annihilation. If annihilation 
be no part of G-od's scheme we can understand 
that a soul, as long as it exists, must bear the lot 
in which it has involved itself. But if it be G-od's 
intention to annihilate any, pity would suggest 
that he should do so without inflicting prelimin- 
ary torment . . It is more difficult to imagine 
purposes served by the temporary sufferings of 
the wicked after this life than by their eternal 
punishment. Sufferings not supposed to end in 
reformation, must be inflicted for the benefit, not 
of the offender himself, but of others. Now we 
can understand that the perpetual exhibition in 
the case of a few (as compared with the whole 
universe) of the terrible consequences of sin 
may be the means for maintaining in the many 
a wholesome horror of sin. It may be questioned 
whether any transient exercise of judgment 


would suffice to produce an impression certain 
to endure throughout eternity. But if tempor- 
rary punishments will suffice, we can form no 
conjecture as to the length of time necessary 
for their continuance. No one can assert that 
he has ascertained that this life is too short 
for the display of Grod's hatred of sin, or that 
he can discern a necesssity for prolonging the 
misery which vice entails in this life for a fur- 
ther period, which, however long, will still be 
but a moment in comparison of eternity." 

In short, then, the supposition of temporary 
sufferings of the wicked to be succeeded by their 
annihilation, appears to be quite destitute of evi- 
dence, while it does not remove a single difficulty 
which attends the doctrine of eternal punish- 
ment." This was observed long since by Cicero, 
who " casts great ridicule on this hypothesis as 
entertained by certain stoic philosophers. He 
urges that they grant all that is difficult, and 
raise doubts where there seems no room for 
doubt." Tusc. Quest. I. 32. 

We see therefore no prospect of change in the 
future ; on the contrary, there seems to be abun- 
dant evidence to show that the same causes not 
only may, but must operate throughout the 
countless ages of eternity. 

1. The necessities of the divine nature demand 
it. G-od's infinite truth demands it. " Hath he 
said, and shall he not do it? Hath he spoken, 
and shall he not bring it to pass ?" 

~ - . _ 22 

His iufinite holiness demands it. To pardon 
sin without sufficient satisfaction would be to 
encourage sin. It would be to offer a premium 
upon its commission, and this is scarcely possible 
for him who is "of purer eyes than to behold 
iniquity," and " chargeth even his angels with 

His infinite justice also demands it. The 
stream of punishment must flow as long as 
flows the stream of sin ; continued punishment 
is but the requitalof desert to those who con- 
tinue in sin. The reward of demerit is as much 
required in the case of the sinner as the reward 
of merit in the case of the righteous. Justice 
demands that the punishment in the one case 
shall be as lasting as the rewards in the other, 
and if that be as long as . their unrighteousness 
lasts, it is more than probable that it will be 
for ever. 

There is no reason to suppose that they will ever 
become better, but on the contrary, worse. Carry- 
ing with them the characters moulded by their 
conduct in this life, they will move on in the 
same direction in which they have been walking 
here, and will become so fixed in their habits 
that it will be impossible to change them. This 
would be the natural result, even if they were 
in the company of the holy and the good ; but if 
not, how can we expect them to improve. Is it 
at all probable that moral progress can be made 

in company with the devil and his angels, where 
there is no counteracting influence for good , no 
example to follow, no voice to warn, no power 
to act ? 

2. The terms of the covenant demand it. In 
order to see this clearly, it is needful to remem- 
ber what has been said about the demerit and 
the guilt of sin. It is the demerit of sin and not 
its guilt which causes the eternity of future 
punishment. While, therefore, the demerit of sin 
remains, the punishment cannot but remain also. 
But the demerit must remain forever where once 
it exists — for man can neither blot out the past 
nor fill up his demerits in the future. He can- 
not mend the breach in the line of his past dis- 
obedience and come to the Lord, and say : My 
obedience is perfect — as thoroughly so as if I had 
never sinned. Till this is done the case is hope- 
less. The broken covenant will call for its ful- 
filment ; and it is evident from the nature of the 
case that it must call in vain. 

3. The interests of Grod's moral government 
demand it. The law which is " holy, just and 
good," must be maintained. To relax it would 
be to render the divine government unworthy of 
respect throughout the moral universe. It would 
be to offer the gift of life on lower terms than it 
was offered originally to Adam in his state of 
innocence, or to angels and archangels before 
him. It would be to manifest a culpable weak- 


ness such as we attribute only to fallible man, 
and to declare that the endurance of a partial 
penalty will suffice, not only to free from condem- 
nation, but also to entitle to the reward of right- 

4. The free agency of man demands it. It is 
well worthy of consideration whether the Uni- 
versalist theory is not inconsistent with the truth 
of the free ag'ency of man. " Is it not a condition 
of the very idea of probation that some will 
stand, others fall ; and does not the logical con- 
clusion from the theory go to prove the denial 
of free will ? Is it really compatible with the 
true idea of free will that all should eventually 
choose aright ?" 

5. The mission of the Saviour demands it. If 
sinners be restored at all hereafter, it must be 
apart from the work of Christ and the interven- 
tion of his Spirit, as already proved. But if so, 
the mission of the Saviour, with all its wondrous 
antecedents and accompaniments, was really 
needless for purposes of salvation. It was noth- 
ing more than a mere sensational exhibition of 
extraordinary moral virtue. The miraculous 
mcarnation of the Son of Man, his deep humila- 
tion and unparalleled sufferings are thus re- 
duced to the level of a mere theatrical display, 
with a view to produce a moral effect ; or, at best, 
to give men a helping hand towards the attain- 
ment of everlasting salvation ; a help which 

. ■, . V 


might have been dispensed with, if this theory 
be true, and which was wholly unnecessary in 
any absolute sense, if it so be that we can be 
saved by temporary punishment, or any other 
name under heaven but that of Jesus only. 

In short, the Universalist theory seems to be 
a total abnegation of the G-ospel. It is certainly so 
with regard to the finally impenitent. Previous 
to Revelation it would be more difficult to under- 
stand how sin could be forgiven than how it 
could b^ eternally punished. But by E^velation 
the mystery of forgiveness is explained, while 
the certainty of eternal punishment is confirmed- 
Since, therefore. Revelation gives no hope (as we 
shall presently see) of future restoration to the 
lost, it seems impossible for those who accept 
not the oficr of forgiveness now, to escape the 
due, and therefore the eternal, reward of their 
deeds.- ■■■"'"^ " "■'■ ■' " ■ ■'"•"' ^^^'^■^■■■• 

6. On the supposition that Christ had not 
come, man must have perished everlastingly^ 
Much more will he be punished " with ever- 
lasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord, and from the glory of his power," if he 
either neglects or rejects th^^. great salvation 
provided for him. Sin in the light of the cross 
becomes exceeding sinful. It enhances un- 
utterably the guilt of the unbeliever. It leaves 
him equally without excuse and without 



7. But we go further and say, that universal 
restoration is impossible even if the Spirit of G-od 
could intervene, apart from the Saviour's satisfac- 
tion for sin ; and simply because, as already 
proved, personal satisfaction in the future can 
never satisfy for personal sin in the past. Even 
therefore on the supposition that the impenitent 
could become thoroughly sanctified in body, soul 
and spirit, apart from Christ, this would not 
suffice to fulfil the terms of the covenant. It 
would not avail to supply the perfect righteous- 
ness. It would not be enough in a court of 
justice to reverse the sentence of death. ; ; 

8. And for the same reason we say that restora- 
tion is impossible, even if it could be proved that 
punish ^nent is purgative. It is not merely the 
cleansing of the sufferer from the guilt and pol- 
lution of sin, that is required. The perfection of 
obedience from the beginning must be secured. . 
The terms of the covenant as regards the precepts 
of the lav7 must be kept inviolate. But we deny 
that punishment is purgative in relation to the 
impenitent, whatever it may be with reference to 
others ; as chastisement, it may be, but not as 
punishment; and, you are aware that chastise- 
ment relates only to the good. 

9. It is a strong confirmation of this truth that 
it is so closely in accordance with the analogy of 
nature. There is a point in the affairs of the 
men of this world, up to which they may retrieve 


their fortunes, but beyond that point it is im- 
possible. • ■ V - 

We conclude, therefore, from the foregoing 
considerations that the present life is " the " 
season favorable to salvation, and the analogy of 
nature teaches us that seasons neglected can 
never be recalled. 

But what saith the Scripture. Before we 
examine it, let me say that there are certain rules 
to be observed in its interpretation which can- 
not be overlooked. Of these two only need be 
mentioned here. 

1. We must interpret it so as to make it con- 
sistent with itaelf, e. g., the meaning of the word 
" reconciliation " must be limited, as God himself 
has limited it. If he says that reconcialiation can 
only be effec^ ^d in one way, viz., through Christ ; 
who are we that we should presume to say it may 
take place in some other way, viz., apart from 

2. We must interpret it from the position of 
its own writers and audiences. 

We come then to the consideration of Scrip- 
tural testimony. It may be subdivided- into the 
following parts : 

1. The testimony of the Old Testament. 
.' 2. The testimony of Christ. . 

3. The testimony of the Apostles. 
. 4. Indirect testimonies. 

We find the first testimony in Gren. ii. Vj, 

* . i 



where it is written : "In the day that thou eat- 
est thereof thou shalt surely die." This means 
more than physical death, for though Adam died 
he continued to live. It embraces a two-fold 
death, " dying, thou shalt die." It supports the 
view that the state of future retribution is the 
continuation and development of the present. It 
intimates that the ultimate death to which refer- 
ence is here enigmatically made, will be unlim- 
ited in its duration. This is indicated negatively 
by the absence of all limit in the verse before us, 
and there is room for the belief that our first 
parents thoroughly understood the matter in this 
sense. If this be true, Adam sinned in full 
view of the nature of the predicted consequences 
and so the very first man (as might naturally 
have been supposed) had clear and sufficient 
information given him respecting a doctrine, of 
which some do not scruple to say that there is 
no trace of it whatever in the Old Testament 
Scriptures. " ' ■ 

The next testimony is found in G-en. iii. 15, 
where it is written " Thou (the serpent) shalt 
bruise his heel." Here it is clearly revealed that 
though the promised Seed should bruise the ser- 
pent's head, yet the serpent should bruise his 
heel, in other words, should succeed in inflicting 
a permanent injury upon that body of which 
the promised Seed was the Head. I say perma- 
nent, because, confessedly, the bruising of the 

', ♦ 


Head is permanent, and the bruising in the one 
clause of the sentence must be equally perma- 
nent with that in the other. If so, we find in 
these words, a clear prediction of the future and 
permanent sufferings of a portion of that body 
of which the Saviour was the appointed repre- 
sentative. They declare on the very first page 
of human history, the perfect compatibility of 
such suffering with the reality of the Saviour's 
supremacy, and the truth of his conquest over 
all his enemies. --► 

Some indeed say that if any be lost, it 
will in so far be an evidence that Satan 
has triumphed over Christ — as if the captives 
behind the conqueror, in his triumphal entry to 
the city, were not rather an additional evidence ■ 

^C ' of his triumph than an evidence against it. 

^ ;■ They say — his purpose of salvation towards them 

/ : is frustrated — yes, if that purpose was that all 

; should be saved without exception, but the very 

• opposite seems to be the case. He has said 

, plainly of some "They shall not see life." He 

said with a significant emphasis " I say unto 

you that many shall seek to enter in and shall 

not be able" (Luke xiii. 24), and it is written 

(Luke xix. 27) : " But those mine enemies which 

would not that I should reign over them bring 

!; hither and slay before me." 

We come next to the types and shadows of 

^ the Mosaic economy and we err greatly, - we 

imagine thatthere are no instructive intimations 


there. We find e. g*, that there were some sins, 
viz., presumptive sins, which were incapable 
of expiation, and this is the germ of the truth 
that there are some sins which shall not be 
forgiven, either in this world, or in that which 
is to come. - 

If we pass on to the Psalms and Proverbs we 
find such passages as these " I shall be innocent 
from the great transgression." (Psl. xix. 13.) 
" Salvation is far from the wicked." (Psl. cxix. 
155.) " The wicked is driven away in his wicked- 
ness, but the righteous hath hope in his death." 
(Prov. xiv, 32.) 

The prophets also speak the same language. 
Isaiah says (xxxiii. 12) : " The people shall be 
as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up, shall 
they be burned in the fire." — Who among us 
shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who 
among us shall dwell with'everlasting burnings? 
He says again in a passage which Archdeacon 
Farrar evidently does not like, and which is as 
evidently referred to by our Saviour in the New 
Testament. " They shall go forth and look upon 
the carcases of the men that have transgressed 
against thee : for their worm shall not die, 
neither shall their fire be quenched and they 
shall be an abhorring to all flesh." (Is. Ixvi. 24.) 
See also Dan. xii. 2. " Many of them that sleep 
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
everlasting life and some to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt." 


These are strong testimonies. They speak of 
death and exclusion from the presence of the 
Lord. To an unsophisticated mind they convey 
the idea of eternal duration. But this is ques- 
tioned, and we reply that all the remaining scrip- 
tural representations confirm this view. * 

Take for example the representations of the Ixyrd 
Jesus Christ himself He did not speak as a Uni- 
versalist when he was here upon earth. His 
countrymen, with the exception of the Sadducees 
believed in the doctrine of eternal punishment. 
But on no occasion did he correct them for 
erroneous views on this subject. I am aware 
that Archdeacon Farrar has questioned the 
truth of the statement, that the Jews believed in 
eternal punishment, but there is full and decisive 
evidence on this point. The Chaldee paraphrast 
interprets it to mean "the Gehenna of eternal 
fire." Lightfoot, vol. xi., p. 107. 

Josephus gives the doctrines of both the Es- 
senes and the Pharisees : — "The Essenes like 
th^ G-reeks allot to bad men a dark and tempes- 
tuous den, full of never ceasing punishments (timo- 
rion adialeipton). De Bello, Judacio ii., 8, 

The Essenes say that bad men are restrained 
by the fear of suffering immortal punishment 
(athanaton timorian) De B., J., 11, 8. 

The Pharisees hold " that souls are incorrupt- 
ible, (apthartous) but that the souls of good men 
are only moved into other bodies, whereas the 



souls of bad men are subject to eternal punish- 
ment (timoria aidio) De B. J., 11, 8. 

Again Aut. xviii., 1 — 3. That there is in hu- 
man souls an immortal force, that to some there 
is assigned "eternal imprisonment (eirgmon 
aidion. — 

Also in his so-called book " De Machaboeis " 
it is written " The judgment shall assign thee 
to an eternal fire (aionio puri) and to torments 
which shall not leave thee for all eternity (eis 
holon ton aiona), and in his discourse concern- 
ing Hades he says " allotting to the lovers of 
wicked works eternal punishment. To these 
belong the unquenchable fire, and that without 
end, and a certain fiery worm, never dying, and 
not destroying the body." * 

The book of Judith also gives evidence of the 
early Jewish opinions on the subject, xvi. 17, 
"The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on 
them in the day of judgment, and they shall 
feel them and weep forever." The question is thus 
placed beyond dispute, and we learn from these 
quotations the sense in which our Lord's words 
are to be understood where he says " Some shall 
enter into life everlasting and others shall go 
away into everlasting punishment." >i 

Consider also how frequently and emphati- 
cally he expressed himself on the subject. 
He said to Nicodemus that he must " be born 
Again or that he could not enter the kingdom." 


He declared that "they (meaning that they only) 
that hear shall live " ; that some " shall come 
forth to the resurrection of damnation " ; that 
there is both "a broad and narrow way," and that 
" few there be that find it " ; that there are some 
who " have never forgiveness "and some who 
shall be " denied before the angels of 6-od "; that 
there is one who " shall destroy both body and 
soul in hell " and some who shall " lose their own 
soul " ; that there are some " who shall die in 
their sins " and some who " shall be thrust down 
into hell " ; that there are some who shall be 
commanded to " depart from him" and some who 
shall be " miserably destroyed." He said on one 
occasion " How can ye escape the damnation of 
hell ? " on another " If a man abide not in me 
he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and 
men gather them and cast them into the fire 
and they are burned." — No man ever yet saw a 
withered branch restored, much less a withered 
branch after it was burned. — He said of Judas 
that he was the " son of perdition " and that he 
was " lost." He said moreover to the eleven on 
the summit ot Olivet, ere he ascended to the 
Father, that it was of the very essence of the 
Grospel which he commissioned them to preach 
to teach this doctrine " Gro ye into all the world 
and preach the G-ospel to every creature, he that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he 
that believeth not shall be damned." 


Now, when we think on these things and re- 
flect that they were spoken to a people who be- 
lieved in the immortality of the soul, and in the 
eternity of penal sufferings beyond the grave,we 
cannot but acknowledge the force of such testi- 
mony on the orthodox side. We ought to con- 
fess that they were calculated to confirm the 
Jews in the popular belief that there was no 
escape from the final condemnation of the pit. 

The teaching of the apostles fully agrees with 
that of their Divine Master; The great burden 
of it everywhere is salvation for the lost. It 
matters not to what Epistle we turn we find its 
author speaking as if the orthodox doctrine were 
true. St. Paul says solemnly to the Gralatians, 
"I tell you that they which do such things 
shall not inherit the Kingdom of Grod." 
" Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also 
roap, he that soweth to the flesh shall of the 
flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the 
spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." 
Is it possible that a stronger illustration could 
have been used ? Is it in the nature of corrup- 
tion to purge and improve that which is the 
sucject of its power ? Or did any one ever see 
corruption restored ? • 

We read also of those " who shall be punished 
with everlasting destruction from the preseJnce 
of the Lord and from the glory of his power,", 
and as if the apostle anticipated the objection 


which so many urge at the present day he puts 
this pertinent enquiry, " Is God unrighteous 
who taketh vengeance ? " and says, " G-od forbid, 
for then how shall God judge the world ? " To 
which we may add the testimony of the loving 
John who says that the " Smoke of their tor- 
ment ascendeth up forever and ever." (Eev. xiv. 
11.) Thus the apostolic testimony also endorses 
the popular belief. Couple it then with that of 
the Saviour's and with the argument derived 
. >from the legal and covenant necessities of the 
case, and the conclusion seems to be irresistible 
that the Scriptures affirm the orthodox doctrine 
with a frequency and a power which cannot 
consist with restoration principles and is abso- 
lutely inexplicable, taken as a whole, except 
upon the basis of its absolute truth. 

This will appear still more strongly if you 
turn to a passage in the epistle of the Hebrews 
vi. 4, where the apostle says " It is impossible 

. . .to renew them again to repentance." 
The force of these words cannot be evaded by 
any of the ordinary methods. They cannot be 
explained away in a figurative sense. It is 
stated plainly that in the case of some, recovery 
is impossible, observe, impossible here^ where the 
Spirit is confessedly available, much more im- 
possible there, where His gracious influences are 
withdrawn. . * 

Now, could there be stronger language than 



this? Surely we have iu this passage what 
Archdeacon Farrar says he has been searching 
in vain for, viz. : "an indisputable voice of 
Revelation to guide us." If this be not one, 
what more indisputable could be desired. This 
is the case of persons upon whom every divine 
influence has been exercised, and without effect. 
Can any other influence be exerted which is 
likely to prove more effectual ? If the Almighty 
himself is unable to persuade men to repent- 
ance, who, or what, can hope to be more 
successful ? The very idea of such a possibility 
is subversive of the first principles of morality 
and religion. It is blasphemous in the extreme. 
The thing as Grod the Holy G-host declares it to 
be — is impossible. 

There are besides many indirect testimonies 
which strongly corroborate the ortliodox view, 
such as, that some are " without Grod " in the 
world, and " without hope " (a flat contradiction 
to Eternal Hope) ; that there are some for who;raL 
the atonement will not avail, and some for 
whom neither prayers nor entreaties will be of 
any use — that both Grod and the righteous 
approve of this retributive treatment, and that 
the incorrigibly wicked continue to grow worse 
and worse, together with many others of a similar 
import, and when we take these in conjunction 
with those which have gone before, and consider 
their cumulative force, they constitute an argu- 


ment which cannot easily be broken. They are 
just the kind of allusion which we might expect 
to meet with, if the orthodox doctrine be true. 
They are quite inexplicable if it be not true, and 
coming as they do from so many portions of 
Grod's Word, and uncontradicted as they are by 
others of an opposite character, they seem per- 
fectly incompatible w^it]^ any other theory than 
that the doctrine is true. 

Y. I propose now to reply to some popular 
objections proceeding from the Univeralists on 
the one hand, and Annihilationists on the other. 
It is objected that the passages quoted do not 
teach the doctrine in question. The terms in the 
original, it is said, are capable of a different 
interpretation. The G-reek word " Aionios " 
does not always mean unending, " Krisis '^ does 
not always mean " eternal" judgment. " Kolasis" 
means positively corrective punishment. 

To which we reply — It is true that " Aionios " 
is used sometimes of limited duration, but it is 
no less true that it is also used in such a way as 
to preclude this idea. It is used of the duration 
of Grod the Father, Eom. xvi. 26. It is used of 
the glory of God the Father, 1 Peter v. 10. It 
is used of the life that is in the Son, Eom. vi. 
23 (see the G-reek) ; 1 John v. 11. It is used of 
the glory that accompanies the salvation that is 
in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. iv. It. It is used of the 
duration of the Eternal Spirit, Heb. ix. 14. It is 


used also of the life of the Blessed, John x. 28 ; 
Heb. V. 9. The question, therefore, as to whether 
it signifies a limited or an unlimited duration 
when it is applied to future punishment, must 
be determined by the general considerations 
already adduced, as well as by those which are 
yet follow, and to my mind there are two whose 
force cannot be evaded, and which, therefore, 
settle the question beyond all controversy. The 
first is, that the terms of the original covenant 
of works require it — without perfect obedience 
the sinner cannot be released. The second, that 
the Jews must have so understood the words of 
the Lord and His apostles ; and therefore our 
Lord and His apostles must have intended them 
to be so understood. 

The same observations apply to all the terms 
used by our Blessed Lord and His apostles with 
reference to this subject. " Krisis " in like 
manner is used sometimes to mean a lesser 
judgment, but it does not follow that it is, there- 
fore, always so used — e.g., in Matt, xxiii. 33 or 
Mark iii. 29. With as much reason it might be 
said that the word " sentence " used most 
frequently in English to signify words arranged 
in a certain order, without any reference what- 
ever to loss of life, can never mean a judicial 
sentence involving loss of physical life ; or, 
that because the English word " hang " in nine 
hundred and ninety-nine cases, perhaps, out of 

every thousand of its tiso, implies the mere 
harmless suspension of a coat or some such 
thing, it can therefore never mean to hang in a 
punitive sense — to kill by suffocation — yet Arch- 
deacon Farrar says that because there are only 
fifteen places out of more than a hundred in 
which our translation has deviated from the 
proper renderings of "judge " and " condemn" 
into " damn " and its cognates, this single fact 
ought to be decisive to every candid mind. 
Indeed! The mind unquestionably may be 
candid, but it would be far from logical. It is 
Scarcely logical to say that because a word is 
used in one hundred and eighty-five cases in 
a certain sense, it must, therefore, be so used 
in every case. 

"We now come to the word " Kolasis " (Matt. 
XXV. 46) of which it is said that it means correc- 
tive punishment — chastisement with a view to 
improvement. Suppose it to be so, for the sake 
of argument. It has been already shown that 
even if men could be sanctified by means of 
punishment, it would not avail (in consequence 
of past imperfect obedience) to deliver them 
from condemnation — it would not entitle them 
on the terms of the covenant, to the reward of 
eternal life. 

But is it true to say that punishment is in its 
nature corrective ? The answer is, yes, but not 
in the sense intended by the Universalist. 

' 40 

*' Kolasis " in its original signification refers to 
the pruning of a tree ({castigatio quce luxuriantihus 
arboribus adhibetur, et qua velut supplicio eoercerentwr, 
et reprimuntur), and the question arises here 
whether the corrective idea expressed by the 
word applies to the tree which is pruned, or to 
the branch which is cut off? We say it applies 
to the tree which is thereby benefited. Univer- 
salists say it applies to the branch which is 
cut off. 

It is objected that " even if the Bible does 
teach the doctrine, we cannot believe it. Such 
teaching is overruled by other considerations.'* 
But we are dealing with those who regard the 
authority of the Bible as supreme. There can- 
not, therefore, be any overruling considerations. 
It is objected — e.g., that eternal punishment 
would be unjust — o finite sin cannot merit an 
eternal punishment. This objection is founded 
on the erroneous suppositions, first, that future 
punisnment relates only to the guilt of sin, 
omitting all considering of its demerit ; and, 
secondly, that it relates only to the sins of this 
life. As regards the first point it is needless to 
repeat that this would be to grant the gift of 
life to sinners on lower terms, denied to others. 
In other words, it would be unjust not to con- 
tinue the punishment as long as the terms of the 
covenant respecting obedience are unfulfilled ; 
and as regards the second, we reply in the 



words of Leibnitz : " No single sin is in- 
finite, but if the sinner in another state 
continues to sin as long as he exists this will 
give to his sins the character of infinity." Let 
no one imagine that sin is limited to this side 
of the grave. It is written " He that is unjust 
let him be unjust still ; and he which is filthy, 
let him be filthy still (Eev. xxii. 11). Our Blessed 
Lord said (John viii. 24) " Ye shall die in your 
sins," and if the reading of Mark iii. 29, now gene" 
rally received, be adopted. He said also " He that 
blasphemeth against the Holy Grhost hath never 
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal sin." 

It is objected further — there will be another 
probation. We answer there is no evidence of 
any, and no reason for it ; if there ought to be 
another, then there ought to be another still, 
and so on ad inflnitum. This theory seems to 
ignore the fact that there are some who are 
incorrigibly wicked, and to suppose that Grod 
would consign them to " the place of torment " 
before they became incorrigible, which is 
certainly putting dishonour upon God. But the 
Scriptures expressly declare there shall be none. 
It says that " now " is the day of salvation. It 
assumes that our present probation is adequate, 
and shall be final. Its solemn warnings and its 
tender entreaties hinge upon the thought that 
all hope of mercy for the sinner dies with his 
physical death. 

42 .' ' 

But it is objected agaiu — the law will be 
relaxed. We answer it is fai from probable, in 
the light of the life and death of Christ ; rather 
than that it should be relaxed in the least degree, 
the Father sent the Son to fulfil its utmost 
requirements. Has He then another Son to send? 
or will the Son of Man consent to die again for 
the ungodly ? Not so long as the words remain 
that " death hath no more dominion over him." 

This answer might suffice, but when it is said 
He relaxed it once by the very admission of the 
Saviour as our substitute, why then can he 
not do so again ? It becomes needful to furnish 
a more detailed reply. The objection betrays an 
ignorance on the subject and a confusion of 
thought which it may be feared is widely 

Our business then will be to show that the 
admission of a substitute was not a relaxation 
of the demands of the law, but on the contrary, 
a means of upholding its demands to the letter, 
and making it honourable. 

The objection proceeds on the supposition 
that the demands of justice for penal satisfaction 
are essentially personal and that, therefore, a 
substitute cannot be admitted. But it is said, 
if Grod is able to substitute one person for 
another, why can he not dispense with punish- 
ment altogether ? 

The answer is, — The law is not relaxed in 

-" '■ ' " " '■' 4S ■ ' ■ ' '^ ^^, 

such a case. Its righteous demands remain the 
same whether they are made upon the sinner in 
person or upon his accepted substitute. There 
is no abatement whatever in respect of either 
the precept or the penalty, consequently, in no 
sense can the admission of a substitute be con- 
strued into a relaxation of the law. This is 
evident if it be admitted, that a legal one- 
ness is all that is required to satisfy the 
claims of law. The substitute is in all respects 
legally one with the person in whose place he 
stands, and a satisfaction made by him secures 
the legal ends in view as fully as if it were 
made by the sinner in person. 

How can this be it is urged ? the sufferings 
of the Saviour were not equivalent in duration. 
The penalty inflicted on the sinner is eternal. 
That incurred by the Saviour was only tem- 
porary. Notwithstanding the satisfaction made 
• by the sinner was equivalent. 

To prove this it will be needful to revert 
to fundamental principles, and call attention 
once more to the demands of the covenant under 
which the Saviour acted. In the case of the 
sinner it demanded merit for demerit and death 
for guilt. Merit alone would not suffice to 
satisfy without death, nor would death and the 
removal of guilt by death be sufficient without 
merit, but both combined constitute all that 
can be required either of the sinner in person 


or an accepted substitute. If, therefore, it were 
possible in the case of the sinner that merit 
should be presented, it would only remain to 
take away the guilt by the act of death, and 
the sinner would be immediaiely released. On 
the other hand, if the sinner presented the 
death and thus took away the guilt, it would 
still remain that he should present the merit, 
and it would follow that he should remain 
under death till that condition should be fulfilled. 
Now the Saviour did present the merit — a per- 
fect unbroken obedience — consequently, it only 
remained for him to take away the guilt by 
death, He, therefore, did not become subject to 
the eternal element at all. He left no duty 
unfulfilled. But the sinner did not present the 
merit. He therefore suffered the death, and he 
must continue *to do so until the merit be 

Hence it appears that the difference in the 
duration between the suffering of the Saviour 
and the sinner was owing to the difference 
between a sinless person and a sinner. It arose 
from the counterbalancing difference in the 
degree of merit. The sinner being unable to 
show merit remained subject to the curse and 
will remain so as long as his inability to produce 
it lasts. The Saviour on the other hand possess- 
ing the merit, was under obligation to do no 
more than remove the guilt, which in his case, 


by reason of his perfect obedience, was the full 
penalty required. 

There is therefore no ground for the asser- 
tion that the law was relaxed in the Saviour's 
case. So far from this being the case, the 
truth is, that the Saviour's intervention was the 
method adopted by Grod to prevent the relaxation 
of the law in effecting the restoration of the 
sinner. Under these circumstances we hold 
that there is not a vestige of hope as regards any 
future relaxation. If Grod relaxed not the law 
for His Son neither will He do it for us. If He 
spared not His own Son, neither will He spare us. 

Notwithstanding, many cling to the idea 
that some relaxation will be made — in particular, 
that merit or a continuous obedience will not 
be required — but where is the evidence of this? 
On the Lord's- side this would be a departure 
from the terms of the covenant which • His 
immutability forbids, and which would scarcely 
consist with the declaration to the young ruler 
—Luke X. 28, " This do, and thou shalt live." 
On the contrary, it will be required for all time 
from us, as it was required of the Saviour in 
H is fulfilment of the covenant on our behalf. 
It is expressly declared that Christ saves by his 
obedience or merit as well as by His sufferings. 
" By the righteousness of one the free gift came 
upon all." (Eom. v. 18,) " That righteousness 
might be imputed to them also." (Rom. iv. 11.) 
" By the obedience of one shall many be made 

- 46 - 

righteous." (Eom. v. 19.) Therefore to those 
who do not accept this " gift of righteousness '* 
(Eom. V. lY) it only remains that they shall 
work it out for themselves. 

We come now to another objection, and a still 
more plausible one — viz. : that God is love, and 
therefore l^e cannot punish men for ever — no 
matter how they have failed. But " our Grod is 
a consuming fire," and if it be said His infinite 
love forbids eternal punishment, it may be 
said also that His infinite fire necessitates it. 
If it be a difficulty to conceive how he could 
punish man on account of his love, it is no less 
a difficulty to conceive how he could fail to do 
so on account of His fire. 

Let us consider this objection a little more 
closely. It is said " the severity of the punish- 
ment is too great — it is rebuked by the mis- 
givings of even human hearts, and shall mortal 
man be more just than G-od, or at any rate more 
pitiful ? — you condemn, it is said, your own 
doctrine by your reluctance to receive it — it 
needs no further condemnation." 

But we demur to these conclusions. We say, 
in the first place, that we cannot measure the 
course of divine action in relation to sin by 
a human standard. Even though we might 
judge aright for the Lord in other matters not 
relating to sin, yet it would be extremely unsafe 
to say the least, that as regards the punishment 

of transgression, we should rely on our power 
to do so. We should probably lay down laws 
for the love of Grod which he could only obey 
at the expense of some other attribute. la our 
desire for tenderness towards the sinner we 
might go so far as to betray a lurking sympathy 
with sin,' or at least an utter ignorance as to its 
true nature and proper deserts. 

I am aware that when we argue in this way 
it is described as "hard reasoning." It is 
thought strange that we should seek to 
establish the infinity of Grod's wrath rather than 
the infinity of His love. But this is scarcely 
a true representation of the facts. "We seek 
not to establish one infinity rather than 
another. We hold that both must stand together 
and that no one infinity can swallow up and 
nullifv another. If. God's wrath be infinite, 
SO also is His love, as is undeniably demonstrated 
in the history of the Cross. If any persist in 
thinking otherwise — if they entertain the blas- 
phemous that Grod is unrighteous who taketh 
vengeance — we cannot meet the imputation 
better than by the repetition of the solemn 
declaration — " As I live, saith the Lord, I have 
no pleasure n the death of the wicked that he 
dieth." Whatever may be our imperfect, not to 
say impious, imaginations on the subject, it is 
evident that the punishment of the impenitent 
however protracted it may be, can in nowise 

. . 48 , . , ^ 

affect the justice, love, or mercy of Him whose 
mercy " reacheth unto the heavens," and who 
declares on oath that he has no pleasure in it. 

But the tree is known by its fruits, it is said, 
and to what purpose is it to say, that God is 
love, if his actions fail to demonstrate the fact. 
Oan he be truly said to have no pleasure in it if 
he be Almighty, and yet permits the wicked to 
perish everlastingly ? 

Is Grod then to be held accountable for all 
that He permits ? Is He responsible in par- 
ticular for that which exists in opposition to 
His will, e.g., Is He chargeable with all the 
accumulated sorrows of this world and the 
countless ills to which human flesh is un- 
happily heir ? He says He does not afflict 
willingly nor grieve the children of men ? He 
might, as King Almighty, prevent it all by the 
simple utterance of a word, or by the exercise 
of his will ; but the fact is he does not, and if 
the permission of the one be consistent with 
his infinite perfections, why might not the other 
also? Why should he be expected to pursue 
a course in relation to future punishment, which 
it is evident He does not pursue with reference 
to present woe ? 

But in addition to the sorrow and misery that 
is in the world there is the sin which is the fruit- 
ful source of it all. Is Grod then to be held 
accountable for the sin as well as the sorrow ? 

He says he hates sir^and is " of purer eyes than to 
behold iniquity," and yet he suffers the sin and 
exercises long forbearance towards it ! We are 
not called upon now to explain this, we merely 
refer to it as an illustration, and say, that it affords 
a very practical illustration of the truth, that 
God can consistently permit what he does not 
approve, and that we cannot reasonably affirm, 
that endless punishment is impossible, unless we 
base our belief on some better ground than the 
love of Grod on the one hand, or his hatred of 
sin on the other. 

But look at the subject in another light. Study 
it in relation to the angels which kept not their 
first estate. So far as we know there is no deli" 
verance for them. They are described as being 
reserved in everlasting chains. Jude 6, and if 
Grod's love be not incompatible with the endless 
doom inflicted upon, them, why should it be 
thought to be so, in relation to the punishment 
threatened against us ? Universalists feel the 
force of this, and therefore they hold that 
sooner or later Satan himself will be associated 
with men in the salvation of the cross. 

We cannot think so, first, because there is not 

the slightest evidence for it ; on the contrary, 

the latest vision vouchsafed to us of the State of 

the Evil one, represents him as further removed 

than ever, from the happiness of the Blessed. It 

reveals him to us as receiving at length the ful- 



ness of his righteous reward-*-as being cast into 
the fire prepared for him, and tormented therein 
day and night foi ever ? 

But this is not all — it is impossible that angels 
could participate in the salvation of the cross of 
Christ. The Scriptures teach us that a Mediator 
must possess the same nature with those for 
whom he mediates. But Christ took not on him 
the nature of angels. He took on him the seed 
of Abraham, for " in all things it behoved Him 
to be made like unto his brethren." In accord- 
ance with this principle, angels are excluded. 
The benefits of the Saviour's satisfaction are 
limited to the nature which he assumed, and as 
a necessary consequence any other sinful nature 
not so assumed by a Redeemer, must remain for 
ever without redemption. 

Nor is this all. We can even see positive 
reason why infinite love should dictate the end- 
less retribution of the impenitent and the vile. 
The love of God has exerted its utmost efforts for 
their restoration from evil, and without avail. 
It has uttered its voice in the streets and said, 
" How long, ye simple ones, will ye love sim- 
plicity, and the scorners delight in scorning, 
and fools hate knowledge. Turn you at my 
reproof, behold, I will pour out my Spirit upon 
you, I will make known my words unto you " — 
but all to no purpose. It has therefore resigned 
the task as hopeless, and turning, away from the 

*' .■' ',r,. iv. ■, /. •;: 


guilty to the good, Infinite love itself says that . 
henceforth all its regards must be directed to 
them. It must watch exclusively after their 
peace and purity, their happiness and safety, and 
to this end it is needful that the wicked shall be 
excluded. The unholy and unclean must abide 
in a place by themselves, rather I should say, 
they must share the place prepared for the devil 
and his angels. 

Another objection is, that universal redemp- 
tion implies univeral salvation. But this is a 
fallacy. It supposes that redemption is a 
synonym for salvation, which is not the case. 
The saved are all redeemed ; i)ut the redeemed 
are not all saved. Redemption is salvation 
provided ; salvation is redemption accepted. 

It may be urged fiirther that the argument 
proves too much — all admit that men undergo 
some penalties for sin. If, therefore, it is unjust 
that those who have been redeemed by Christ, 
as all have been, should suffer an endless punish- 
ment for sin, it is manifestly unjust that they 
should suffer at all. It is not possible that G-od 
should adopt for a moment, a principle of action 
which he could not righteously maintain for 

It is objected by Annihilationists that the 
terms " death " and " destruction " mean anni- 
hilation e.g.^ Matt. X. 28, where it is written, - 
*' Fear him which is able to destroy both soul 

■■■■". 6% ■■ . , 

and body in hell." It is said the meaning is, to 
annihilate both soul and body in hell. But this ^ 
is not the case. The terms as used in Scripture 
imply continued existence. They are often used "^ 
in appeal to man's fear of suffering — "Destroy 
this temple and in three days I will raise it up," 
yet, though destroyed, that temple was not 
annihilated. " In the day that thou eatest thou 
shall surely^die," yet Adam lived in death. " The 
world that then was, perished," (2 Pet. iii. 6), 
yet we are living on it to the present hour. And 
we read in Rev. ii. 11 that he that overcometh 
shall not be hurt of the second death. Hurt or 
injury would not be possible on the supposition 
of annihilation, the word " hurt " (adikein) means 
to inflict something that is felt, e.g., Luke x. 19, 
" I will give you power ... so that nothing 
shall by any means hurt you." From these 
instances we see how groundless is the theory. 
Many other proofs might be adduced, but let 
these suffice. 

VI. I now proceed to criticize Archdeacon 
Farrar's exegetical notes. 

Mark iii. 29, it is written : "He that shall 
blaspheme against the Holy Grhost hath never 
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damna- 
tion." The Archdeacon accepts the rendering 
" eternal sin," but he cannot by this means 
weaken the testimony. Eternal sin involves 
Eternal punishment. The meaning is, " He hath 

not forgiveness during the age, i.e., the age 
allotted for forgiveness viz., the present age (the 
article is emphatic), but is in danger of eternal 
sin (without the article.) 

The excursus deals next with the terms aion and 
aionios (see page 3Y). But in connection with them 
the Archdeacon notices St. Augustine's argument, 
viz., that etern a punishment must be endless, 
because eternal life is endless, the same G-reek 
term aionios being applied to both — Mat. xxv., 
49, and says, " this is no argument at all (mark 
the reason), because those who press it refuse to 
apply it analogously to such texts as : " As in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive." I, however, am not among the 
number. There is no difficulty with me ' in 
applying it to this text in the fullest and most 
unrestricted sense. The universality is com- 
plete in both cases. The passage refers to the 
general Resurrection, not to Eestoration. 

The Archdeacon adds, " our sure and certain 
hope of everlasting happiness rests on no such 
miserable foundation as the disputed meaning 
of a G-reek adjective." This is true of everlasting 
happiness and no less true of everlasting punish- 
ment, but I should hesitate to apply the terms 
*' miserable foundation" to any word used by 
God the Holy Ghost. 

On the word " kolasis" (see page 39). The Arch- 
deacon next says, "Unless my whole nature were 

utterly changed, I can imagine no immortality 
which would not be abhorrent to me, if it were 
accompanied with the knowledge, that millions 
and millions of poor suffering wretches, some of 
whom on earth I had known and loved, were 
writhing in agony without end and without 
hope." To which we reply, after premising 
that the writhing in agony need not be under- 
stood in a material sense, this argues a very 
wide divergence between Grod's thoughts and 
yours on the subject. But even if such diver- 
gence of view as to the deserts of incorrigible 
sinners, be compatible with vital faith in G-od 
through Christ, as I believe it is, it cannot be 
denied that it gives evidence of a weak and 
imperfect faith which needs careful cultivation, 
before it reaches that perfection which enables 
us to say, " Eight eous and true are thy judg- 
ments thou king of saints," or to express our- 
selves in the words " It is the Lord, let him do 
what seemeth him good" — 1 Sam. iii., 18. 

But why it may be asked should such a con- 
dition be more abhorrent to the Archdeacon 
with reference to the next world than a similar 
condition with reference to this^ ? How many are 
sufferers here both in body and soul to the end 
of their days ? And wh}' should they not be 
there ? Or even if the contemplation of a life^ of 
suffering be abhorrent to his mind, does this 
destroy its reality ? Does this abhorrence of it 

wipe out its existence, and prove it to be the 
groundless creation of a vivid imagination ? I 
trow not, and if not, then we hold that it will 
be of equally little avail to weaken the force of 
evidence for the reality of that which is to come, 
to quench the fires of G-e henna, and persuade 
men that it is but the airy phantom of a dre am. 

The next point to be noted is "If the doctrine 
of endless torment be true, it is incredible that 
there should be no trace of it in the entire Old 
. Testament." 

It seems scarcely credible that the Archdeacon 
should make such a statement as this which 
denies that there is any reference to the subject 
in the first covenant of works or in the judicial 
sentence, " Thou shall surely die," or in the 
Psalms, the Proverbs or the Prophets. But as 
already shown, there is such reference. The idea 
underlies the whole of the Old Testament Econ' 
omy. Of this death, the visible death of the body 
is the visible sign and seal, and that the 
patriarchs so understood it, is implied in the 
emphatic repetition of the significant declaration 
" and he died." 

But strange to say the Archdeacon objects to 
G-en. iii. 15, as supporting the orthodox view. He 
asks " how can this be, if Satan triumphs by gain- 
ing millions to be his slaves " ? The answer is 
Grod reveals the fact, and if it be not understood, 
Faith does not press the question, how. But to 

■ - 56 -^' '■'-■^/- 

most minds there is no difficulty as to the " how " 
of the matter, if they accept an illustration from 
human victories . The greater the number of 
captives, the greater the proof of the victory. 
Satan is not to be regarded as a rival conqueror 
to the Saviour, but as being himself subjected 
with his captives to the irre;^ istible will of the 
Son of Man. Victory does not imply the loyalty 
of the conquered, nor does the captivity of the 
conquered reflect upon the reality of the victor's 

The Archdeacon cites G-en. xii. 3, which says, 
" In thee shall all the families of the earth be 
blessed." Yes, blessed ; but not necessarily 
saved. Moreover it is written "families" or 
" nations" (Gren. xviii. 18), not all the individuals 
of each family or nation. 

He refers also to Psalm ciii. 9 — " He will not 
always be chiding, neither keepeth he his anger 
for ever. He retaineth not his anger for ever, 
because he delighteth in mercy." This is the 
language of the believer who accepts and rejoices 
in God's method of putting away sin through 
Christ. " He hath not dealt with us after our 
sins," and " as far as the east is from the west» 
so far hath he put away our iniquity." This 
therefore, has no reference to the future. It is 
not (as the context proves) an absolute, but a 
relative truth. While we may affirm of God's own 
people that he is not angry with them for ever, 

^ _ ' 61 ^' ■■■■: ' :. ■' '.:■ ■ , 

because they have complied with his will, we 
may affirm also of the wicked that he is angry 
with them every day. 

Psalm cxxxix. 8. " If I make my bed in hell 
thou art there," yes, he is there to condemn. It 
does not say that he is there to save. 

Isaiah Ivii. 16. — " I will not contend for ever, 
neither will I be always wroth, for the Spirit 
should fail before me and the souls which I have 
made." The A 'chdeacaii applies this to the 
state of the wicked hereafter, not only "without 
ground, but in direct opposition to the context- 
It is expressly said of the " humble and contrite 
ones " and contrasts their state with that of the 
wicked. It concludes with the words " The 
wicked are like the troubled sea w^hen it cannot 
rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There 
is no peace saith my Grod to the wicked " ! ! 

Isaiah xlix. 9. — " That thou mayest say to the 
prisoners, ' G-o forth ' ; to them that are in dark- 
ness show yourselves." Here again the context 
points out the misapplication. This is a prophecy 
of the release of spiritual prisoners during the 
present G-ospel dispensation. It is similar to 
the passage quoted by the Saviour in the syna- 
gogue in Gralilee, of which he said : " This day 
is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." There 
is not the shadow of a proof to show that it 
refers to post Grospel times during which the 
door of deliverance will be shut. 

Hosea vi. 1. — " Come and let us return unta 
the Lord, for He hath torn, and he will heal 
us. lie hath smitten and he will bind us up.'^ 
The present is the day of healing. The Arch- 
deacon must show that the passage applies to 

a future state. He must show also that in that 
future state sinners will be ready to say " Come 
and let us return unto the Lord." This is a 
necessary condition of being healed in any state. 

Hosea xiv. 4. — " I will heal their backsliding, 
I will love them freely." Yes, if they return ; 
but the incorrigibly wicked will have no desire 
to return. 

John i. 29. — " The Lamb which taketh away 
the sin of the world." He has taken it away ; 
but redemption does not imply salvation here, 
much less hereafter. Taking awdy the sin of 
the world is not obliterating it from the universe. 

John iii. 1^. — " God sent not his Son into the 
world to condemn the world, but that the world 
through him might be saved." Certainly; 
because the world was already condemned — As 
certainly he came that the world might be saved 
— but what if the world would not be saved ? 
" I would," said the Son of Man to Jerusalem, 
" but ye would not ; therefore, your house is 
left unto you desolate." 

John iii. 35. — " The Father loveth the Son, 
and hath put all things into his hand." Yes ; 
but it does not follow that all the things given 


into his hand — e.g., Jerusalem, would be saved 
from destruction. - 

• 1 John iv. 14. — " The Father sent the Son ta 
be the Saviour of the world." The Archdeacon 
translates it the Saviour of the universe, but the 
word is " Kosmos," and therefore means the 
world — not the universe. 

John xii. 32. — " I, if I be lifted up, will draw 
all men unto me." Yes ; but not necessarily 
with saving effect. All men are undoubtedly 
drawn nearer to Grod and Christ, by the satis- 
faction made upon the cross. The guilt and 
demerit of sin are removed, and the door of 
salvation is npw open,' but it does not follow 
that all will therefore enter in. Or the mean- 
ing may be " I will draw all nations unto me 
(G-en. xviii. 18) as opposed to the single nation 
of the Jews." In either case it does not imply 
universal salvation. 

Luke XII. 48. — " He shall be beaten with few 
stripes." Yes ; but he shall be beaten, and there 
is nothing to prove that " few in number " means 
" short in duration." 

1 John ii. 2. — "A propitiation for our sins, and 
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world." Yes, a propitiation for them, but 
not necessarily a forgiveness of them. 

Acts iii. 21. — "The restitution of all things."^ 
Yes* ; the new heavens and the new earth (Eev. 
xxi. 1). To refer it to the restitution of all men 

would be to make G-od contradict himself, and 
we may not expound one part of Scripture so 
that it shall be repugnant to the other. 

Eph. i. 10. — "That he might gather together 
in one all things in Christ, which are in heaven 
and which are in earth. This is limited by the 
expressions " in Christ," " in Heaven " and " in 
Earth." There is nothing to show that the 
gathering will extend to things in Hell. 

Phil. ii. 10, 11. — " That at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of things in Heaven and 
things in earth, and things under the earth." 
This does refer to things under the earth ; but 
it is under the earth they bow, and hot in 

Col. i. 19, 20. — " By him to reconcile all things 
to himself, whether they be things in earth or 
things in heaven." Yes ; but you cannot extend 
the reconciliation to things in Hell. 

Eom. viii. 19-24.. — " The earnest expectation 
of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of 
of the sons of G-od." Yes ; but it says nothing 
of the manifestation of those who are not the 
sons of Grod. 

Rom. V. 18. — "The free gift came upon all 
men unto justification of life." Yes ; but the 
" all " is limited in this verse by the context. 
This is quite common in Scripture, e.g., " all men 
came unto him," " all the world should be 
taxed," " allJudea and allJerusalem," these must 



from the nature of each case be limited. Such 
limitation is always implied when other Scrip- 
tures referring to the same subject require it, e.g*., 
— It is everywhere taught that faith is necessary 
to justification. "When, therefore, it is said 
that ' all are justified,' the meaning must be "all 
believers," because it ie vrritten, ' By him all that 
believe are justified.' " So here, " all " cannot 
be taken in an absolute sense. The man Christ 
Jesus, a;t least, must be excepted, and therefore 
in the light of the context, the meaning is, all 
connected with Christ, are they upon whom the 
gift came. 

Eom. xi. 32. — " G-od hath concluded all in un- 
belief that he might have mercy upon all." But 
what if they would not accept the mercy ? 

Rom. xiv. 9. — " That he might be the Lord 
both of the dead and the living." Therefore the 
dead must continue that he may be Lord of the 

1 Cor. XV. 22. — " As in Adam all die, so in 
Christ shall all be made alive." Universal 
death is the result of Adam's conduct. So the 
general resurrection is the result of the Saviour's 
action, but the general resurrection does not 
imply universal salvation- 

1 Cor. XV. 25. — " He must reign till he hath 
put all things under his feet." Yes ; but under 
his feet, is not, exalted to heaven. 

1 Cor. XV. 26. — " The last enemv that shall be 

62 > 

destroyed is death." Yes, but destruction is not 
extinction (see page 51.) The word rendered 
destroyed means, " rendered powerless to harm." 

1 Cor. XV. 28.—" That God may be all in all." 
Yes, when the Devil, and Death and Hades are 
cast out, and cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 
XX. 11-14.) ' ^ 

1. Tim. ii. 4. — " Who willeth all men to be 
saved. Yes ; but he does not obtain all that he 
wills, as the cross of Calvary proves. Matt, 
xxvi. 39. 

1 Tim. iv. 10. — " God, who is the Saviour of 
all men, specially of those that believe." Words 
which draw a clear distinction between the 
manner in which he is the Saviour of those 
who believe and those who do not believe. In 
him salvation is possible to those who do not 
believe, during the present season only, but 
salvation is actual to those who believe." 

1 Tim. ii. 6. — " A ransom for all." Yes, but 
not accepted by all. 

Titus ii. 11-12. — " The grace of God is saving 
to all men." The passage may also be translated 
"The grace of God hath appeared to all men, 
bringing salvation." But accepting the ordinary 
translation, it is true in a possible, not in an 
actual, sense — simply because it would make 
God contradict himself 

Heb. ii. 14. — " That he might destroy him that 
had the power of death, that is, the devil." 


Destroy means to bring to nought, to render 
powerless — it does not imply extinction. 

Heb. ii. 8. — " Thou hast put all things in sub- 
jection under his feet." Yes ; but universal 
. subjection does not imply universal salvation. 

Heb. ii. 9. — " That he should taste death for 
every man." Universal redemption is taught 
here, not universal salvation. 

Rev. V. 13. — "Every creature which is in 
. heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in 
them I heard saying, " Blessing, and honour, and 
glory, and power, etc." Yes ; but as before, this 
does not extend to things in hell. 

Eev. xxi. 4-5. — " Grod shall wipe away all 
tears from their eyes." Yes ; but it is from their 
eyes, viz., the eyes of the saved ; " and there 
shall be no more death among them ; neither 
any more pain." Nothing here referring to 
those in hell. 

Rev. xxii. 3. — " And there shall be no more 
curse " — among his servants, as the context 

^, Rev. XX. 14. — " And death and hell were cast 
into the lake of fire." Yes ; cast out of the 
earth, but not therefore extinguished. 

Here the texts end. They teach universal 
redemption, but give no countenance to uni- 
versal salvation. The Archdeacon, however, 
asks again whether the predicted triumph of 


Christ, and the universality of his kingdom are 
consistent with the popular doctrine that only 
the few are to be saved, and we answer, they must 
be, provided the popular doctrine is based on 
Christ's own words. For proof that it is so based, 
it is only needful to quote again Luke xiii. 24 
where it is written, that our Lord testified, 
saying, "Many, I say unto you, will seek to 
enter in and shall not be able." 

But we answer again, the question is not 
whether few or many shall be saved, but 
whether there are any at all who shall not be 
s aved. The orthodox position would be estab- 
lished, if it could be proved that no more 
than one only had made himself an heir of 
everlasting destrviction, and that there is one, 
at least, who shall reach this unenviable des- 
tinction seems clear from what is said of the 
" Son of perdition." 

Even the Archdeacon himself seems un- 
willingly to admit that there are some who are 
in this unhappy condition. He frankly says 
that he is unable to adopt the Universalist view 
because, he says, there are one or two passages— 
which seem to make it unwise to speak dog- 
matically on a matter which God has not clearly 
revealed. He does not tell us what these pass- 
ages are — a course which is hardly consistent 
with fairness, since he has given such publicity 
to texts on the other side. But I wish to observe 


that by this admission, he manifestly gives up the 
whole question. He acknowledges his position to 
be unproved, as the very title of his book indicates. 
Here then is a strong confirmation of the ortho- 
dox view. If Archdeacon Farrar confesses his 
inability to disprove it, there must be strong 
reasons for believing it to be true. We recognize 
them in what Christ says: "They shall not see 
life" ; " They shall not be able to enter in." 

On these two statements alone, I am willing to 
lean the whole controversy. " Hath he said, and 
shall he not do it. Hath he spoken, and shall 
he not bring it to pass." Men may now, as of 
old, prefer to listen to the voice of the charmer 
who, with a plausible duplicity ,^nd devilish 
malignity, endeavours, through means of some 
weak, but otherwise worthy agent, to persuade 
them that the words of the living G-od, the great 
Creator " Thou shalt surely die " bear a mean- 
ing the very opposite of that which they were 
intended signify. But as surely as they allow 
themselves to be influenced by that deceptive 
voice, so surely shall they taste the bitterness of 
their choice, as our first parents did ; and unless 
they lay hold by faith on that eternal life, which 
is so graciously offered to them and all mankind 
in Christ, " without doubt, they shall perish ever-